Obama flip flops on gun control

[RecycleMichael]

Obama has a history of supporting gun control...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9398.html

Now he flip-flops and tells Pennsyvania voters he doesn't.

[Conan71]

Supports a ban on semi-auto weapons and concealed weapons.  That's a big strike against him.  

[cannon_fodder]

I'll go over this as many times as I have to...  taking away arms is a bad idea.  Do I need fully automatic weapons?  No.  Do I need semi-automatic weapons?  No.  Do I need... No.

But at some point the right to bare arms becomes worthless, and every step in the wrong direction makes the next step easier.  Plus, I see no logic in the "if we have no weapons we have no violence" argument as it has time and again been proven wrong.

A strike against him for policy and for the flop (taking it at face value, I do believe people can change their minds and I will not hold it against them unless overtly for political reasons).

[USRufnex]

Obama has long backed gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He has declined to take a stance on the legality of the handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., which the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing, although Obama has voiced support for the right of state and local governments to regulate guns.

In the Senate, he and Clinton broke on one vote, in July 2006. Siding with gun-rights advocates, Obama voted to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during an emergency or natural disaster. Clinton was one of 16 senators to oppose the amendment.

A two-page white paper on Obama’s website doesn’t mention his voting record.

Instead, he introduces himself as a former constitutional law professor who “believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.”

“He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting,” the paper states. “He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and common sense regulation.”

------------------------------------------------

The NRA is despised on the southside of Chicago and the city in general.  Obama could never have been elected to the Illinois state senate if he supported a "concealed weapons" law.

If I carried a concealed weapon in Chicago, I would have been shot with it when I was jumped from behind and mugged on the northside eight years ago...

[RecycleMichael]

So you are saying he was right to be for gun control when he was running for a Chicago inner city state seat but he now should be be against gun control because he is campaigning in rural Pennsyvania?

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Plus, I see no logic in the "if we have no weapons we have no violence" argument as it has time and again been proven wrong.

I think the argument is, "if we have fewer guns, violence will be less fatal."  I don't know anyone who supports stricter gun regulation that thinks fewer guns means humans will magically become less violent.

I heard an interesting tidbit on one of the talkshows on Sunday in a discussion of Charlton Heston's death and legacy with the NRA. Can't remember where I saw it or who said it, but the assertion was made -- and all the guests on the panel, including the NRA guy, seemed to agree -- that the Second Amendment has had relatively few challenges, in comparison with other amendements, in front of the Supreme Court.  Which would mean, essentially, that the right to bear arms hasn't been as well defined, or as refined as the others have been.

I thought that was fascinating and wished I'd had some follow up from Anonymous Guy on Anonymous Talk Show.  I'll dig some on the interwebs to see if I can find any tidbits about it.  

[USRufnex]

Could you quote the actual flip-flop here?... because I don't see a difference from when Obama was running for US Senate and was trying to gain sympathy for his views in rural southern Illinois...

Obama’s approach is similar to one advocated by Third Way, which issued a seven-step blueprint in 2006 to close the “gun gap” with Republicans. In a memo on its website, the group urges progressives to avoid silence on gun issues, and instead “redefine the issue in a way that appeals to gun owning voters.”

Among the key steps, according to Third Way: “Own the Second Amendment” and “Take Your Message Directly to Gun Owners — Don’t Let Your Opponent Define You.”

The National Rifle Association posted an article on its website in February warning members against buying into Obama and Clinton, who were using the “scripted rhetorical tricks in the Third Way playbook to the letter.”

Kim Stolfer, chairman of Firearm Owners Against Crime, a political action committee that conducts a candidate questionnaire on behalf of Pennsylvania’s gun groups, said he has not heard from any of the candidates — Obama, Clinton or Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

For now, even if Obama hasn’t won over the gun ownership groups, his outreach efforts show signs of paying some dividends.

State Rep. Tim Solobay, a pro-gun Democrat who is uncommitted but leaning toward Clinton, said he began asking questions about Obama’s record after he saw Surra, one of the highest-ranking gun advocates in the General Assembly, wearing an Obama button.

“It was very surprising to me,” Solobay said. “He is a sportsman. Guys like him carried the mantle for years as pro-gun Democrats. There may be some legitimacy to it. This is what Danny said to me: ‘He has got a much more pro-gun side than what even he anticipated or thought.’ I have not read his information yet. But I take Danny's opinion very highly."

[FOTD]

http://www.freedomstatesalliance.com/splash.php?redirect=fsa

This won't change my vote for Obama on the ballot "from my cold, dead hands."

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us



I heard an interesting tidbit on one of the talkshows on Sunday in a discussion of Charlton Heston's death and legacy with the NRA. Can't remember where I saw it or who said it, but the assertion was made -- and all the guests on the panel, including the NRA guy, seemed to agree -- that the Second Amendment has had relatively few challenges, in comparison with other amendments, in front of the Supreme Court.  Which would mean, essentially, that the right to bear arms hasn't been as well defined, or as refined as the others have been.

That is totally true.  They have essentially not touched the 2nd since the 1920's crack down on automatic weapons and gangsters.  Even then it was a vague and specific ruling.  They have discussed it in relation to the commerce clause (Fed can regulate guns in school zones) and the Supremacy clause (Fed > State gun laws).  but they have NEVER declare it an individual right or if it is reserved to the state.

HOWEVER, a case is before them at the moment (Challenging DC's gun rules).  Oral arguments have already been held and the court strongly suggested which way it will move - by asking about the need to reserve the right to "the people" and not unto the states.  In about 3 months, when released, the right to bear arms will officially be reserved to the PEOPLE and arguments about only the military will cease.

quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That much is almost a given now, what the sticking point is, and always is:  How much can government infringe on that right?  Government can stop you from shouting "FIRE" in a movie theater of threatening to kill the president, in spite of the 1st Amendment.  Property rights are asserted, unless the government needs it for a public use.  The LEVEL of scrutiny needed to curtail the 2nd Amendment right (strict scrutiny I imagine).

My guess... laws restricting the right to bare ares will have to:

1) Further a compelling government interest (preventing mass murder can pass)
2) Narrowly tailored to achieve the government's purpose (over or under inclusive - "prevent murder" won't work because cross bows can still be used)
3) and by the Least Restrictive Means (ie. background checks instead of an outright ban).

The DC gun ban will probably fail as restricting it to hand guns may not be narrowly tailored and denying ALL people access is probably not the least restrictive means (since criminals of course still have them).

Just my guess.

[custosnox]

Thank you CF.  You just put out there all my thoughts on the comment that I would have, except my tired mind just couldn't grasp all the pertinant info.  And ya added in the last bit that I wouldn't have thought of adding.

[Conan71]

Yeah, but CF- what about the Clinton "assault weapon" ban.  They essentially dicatated what type of firearms would be allowed to be legally owned by civilians, which is pretty much what the Clinton ban did.  What am I missing?

Interesting, I own some guns exempted in the Clinton ban and proposed ban.  If I'm reading correctly that the Ruger 10/22 would be banned, that is utter stupidity and there are at least 5 million of those to go round up.

Sorry but whether or not they have a certain style of grip or attachment is totally irrelevant if the gun isn't sighted for crap and someone is a crappy marksman.

Read on:

McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Infamous Clinton Gun Ban


On Feb. 14, 2007, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes." McCarthy`s choice of words warrants explanation.

Obviously, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the now-discredited Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that studies by the Congressional Research Service, congressionally-mandated studies, and studies by state and local law enforcement agencies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

Reauthorizing the Clinton ban would be bad enough. The guns that it temporarily banned--very widely used for target shooting, hunting and home protection--are still used in only a small percentage of crime. But McCarthy`s "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.
Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s, and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")
All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip.
Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")
Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn`t "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.